Now the AG Ken Cuccinelli is ready to file his third lawsuit against the United States of America. This time his is suing the EPA because they have said greenhouse gases and carbon emissions are harmful. According to Lychburg’s News and Advance:
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli stands ready to take more legal action against the federal government if the Environmental Protection Agency announces new fuel economy standards for vehicles Wednesday, he said in Lynchburg on Tuesday.
Cuccinelli has sued the EPA over its finding that greenhouse gases harm people, and if it issues regulations Wednesday that are based on that finding, “We will sue them again,” he told the Lynchburg Regional Chamber of Commerce.
Virginia’s Democratic Party renewed its accusations Tuesday that two Cuccinelli lawsuits against the federal government over global warming and health care are wasting the state’s resources “to wage a personal, political fight.”
Apparently the AG missed seeing our atheletes disembark from the plane in Bejing 2 summers ago. Some of them were wearing gas masks because of the horrible air quality in that city. Where does the AG think that smog comes from? Could it be the millions of cars in that city?
What stance will out BOCS take on his new lawsuit? Will they be sending him atta-boy letters on Prince William County Board of Supervisors letterhead? At least one supervisors feels he was looking out for the people of Prince William County during the last letter of praise that went out to the AG. Will they be willing to look out for us now, since we live in one of the most impacted emissions areas? Will there be a directive for the AG, Cuccinelli to knock it off on our behalf?
The AG says these lawsuits only cost the $385 filing fee. Yea. Right. Is he also ignoring that we are all Americans and what the cost is double? We will pay the Virginia fees and the United States fees. Perhaps the AG forgot we are Americans. Meanwhile, I am not unconvinced that the AG ran for office just to advance his personal agenda and that we have given him the platform to do it. I have to get used to this new idea that carbon emissions and green house gas emissions are good for me. Why don’t I just go back to smoking?
The issue in the Beijing Olympics was primarily tropospheric ozone, which indeed is a threat to human health. But there has been no conclusive study to show that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere affects human health. Studies have attempted to correlate health issues with increasing temperature, but the link is tenuous.
I am not ready to say it is good for you either.
It really isn’t rocket science to agree that fuel emissions aren’t good for you. Can the AG prove that?
According to ghgonline.org
Sounds like cars and trucks to me. (isn’t that what ‘transport’ means?)
I wish he’d sue Fox News for violating their promise to be “fair and balanced”.
Here we go again. Even though CO2 has nothing to do with smog, (look up smog on Wikipedia to see what’s in smog. Hint: it’s just about everything except CO2) and even though Cuccinelli’s lawsuit is about CO2 regulation only, this blog will try to blur the lines to continue it’s anti-Cuccinelli crusade.
This lawsuit isn’t about car emissions. This is about the EPA giving itself the authority to regulate CO2 simply because they want to do it. There’s no law giving them the authority to do it, and that’s why Cuccinelli is suing.
If you want the EPA to regulate CO2, get Congress to pass a law. With Democrats controlling both houses (at least until November!) and a Democrat in the White House, it shouldn’t be that hard to give the EPA the authority to regulate CO2 LEGALLY. But until that happens, the EPA doesn’t have the authority to impose these standards and they should be sued.
Or is this another situation where the ends justify the end-run around the Constitution? (Like ‘deem and pass’)
Go Cuccinelli Go!! Continue to be our champion against the federales. 🙂
I appologize for not having posted in awhile. Was at a required work conference in CA.
@Moon-howler
Tropospheric chemistry relating to ozone production is complicated. Not enough is known about it to show that these new emission standards will having any effect on ground-level ozone. It should not be up to the AG to prove anything, it should be the EPA that proves two things:
1) Reduced emissions will have the desired effect in terms of human health;
2) The costs do not outweigh the benefits.
Moonhowler is fond of stating (I paraphrase) that the Civil War effectively ended states rights. There are at least 13 state AG’s that disagree with that viewpoint.
Federal agencies are not dictatorships that require the states to salute smartly and obey. It is high time that the federal government get some push back.
@Juturna
Good one, Juturna. Happy Easter!! 🙂
using the line of reasoning I am hearing here, then all of the food and drug administration is powerless to regulate what drugs we can take.
Sorry about lacking the technical term for smog. On this blog it will mean ‘crap in the air we breath.’
smog (smg, smôg)
n.
1. Fog that has become mixed and polluted with smoke.
2. A form of air pollution produced by the photochemical reaction of sunlight with hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides that have been released into the atmosphere, especially by automotive emissions.
Anti-Cuccinelli crusade? Works for me. Consider it done.
Fat chance. He has been on Fox News as much as Sean Hannity lately. He is the new fair haired child, Juturna.
No, the FDA has specific authority granted to it by Congress that covers what it can regulate. Remember back in the 90s the FDA wanted the authority to regulate tobacco. They didn’t get it though because Congress wouldn’t give it to them.
Obama’s EPA isn’t willing to obey the law though or even wait for Congress to change the law. (Again, it’s all Democrats so Nancy Pelosi should be able to just ‘deem’ something passed and the EPA is good to go.) But instead of obeying the law, the EPA simply wants to give itself the right to regulate almost every facet of the economy. (Virtually anything that burns a fuel creates CO2, so pretty much anything that involves heat now is regulated by the EPA.)
One more time: This has nothing to do with emissions. It’s about a government agency going rogue. If this were Bush’s Justice Department giving itself expanded authority to search for illegal immigrants, I think you’d be applauding the AG for standing up to an out of control Federal government. The fact that you either like the EPA’s illegal policy or just hate Cuccinelli that much is pretty sad. The power grab by the EPA is wrong, no matter what the cause.
Remember that Wascally Rule of Law? It works both ways.
Now just what do illegal immigrants have to do with the EPA? It seems that visitor has brought another preconceived agenda to ‘howlings.net.
Cuccinelli is sue crazed. Nuff said.
You too Chris – best part of Easter – the peeps!
Moon,
After all this, you appear to be criticizing Cuccinelli even after the facts are in. You may not like him, but to continue to criticize his actions for doing something completely with the purview of his duties is not rational. The suit is about the EPA overstepping its bounds and regulating a natural gas as a pollutant. CO2 does not harm the environment and in fact makes plants grow better. Recent developments have shown that the AGW “science” is not settled nor proven. The EPA’s findings and regulation is based on political positions not science. Criticize the AG all you want, but, do it for a reason that makes sense.
Auto emissions are dangerous to people’s health.
This subject has been an on-going topic for literally years. How much longer are we going to discuss it? We disagree.
I suppose the AG can sue anyone he wants. I also don’t have to approve of him doing so. He has gotten one atta boy from me this week. That’s his quota until I see something that isn’t part of the uber conservative agenda. Moderate here. We aren’t going to agree on these things, Cargo.
The AG isn’t suing the EPA about auto emissions. He is suing them to prevent CO2 from being considered a pollutant. Our auto emissions, compared to countries other than Canada and Western Europe are as clean as its possible to make them. I mean, criticize him about any FOIA problems. If he doesn’t respect those, I’ll second you on the outrage.
Illegal immigrants have nothing to do with the EPA. It should have been obvious to everyone that I was making a comparison to what your reaction would be to a federal agency overstepping it’s authority on something you disagree with as opposed to an issue you support. I think you know that though and are trying to dodge the issue by accusing me of changing the subject.
In short, I was accusing you of being unable to view the subject rationally because of either your personal animosity towards Cuccinelli or your support for the end of regulating CO2. Despite multiple people posting here to say that the issue isn’t CO2 or car emissions, it’s a rogue EPA acting without legal authority, you keep ignoring the real reason for the suit and stick to the talking points of “pollution bad. Cuccinelli kookinelli.”
And I’m the one with a “preconceived agenda”?
Stop digging Visitor. You have no idea how I would feel about illegal immigrants and federal laws. That’s the preconceived notion. Want to tell me why you think that?
It sounds to me that he is challenging EPA’s right to declare that greenhouse gases harm people and to decision to regulate those gases under the clean air act.
Yea, I am going to stick to emissions being bad. That idea has been regulated for a long time. You know that long sensor thingie that gets stuck up your exhaust system? Who authorized that? Who set the limits? Is it good or bad?
And you are right…I didn’t support the Cuccinelli for AG. And the word I used was Kookoonelli. Should I change my little nickname for the AG to Sue-ccinelli? 3 lawsuits in 2-3 months? Going for a record there isn’t he? And I wasn’t even counting his directive to colleges and universities about gay protection rights. He is an embarrassment to Virginia, in my opinion.
My apologizes on misspelling your derisive nickname for the Attorney General of our state. I sure hope I didn’t offend you any more than you offend the 1,124,018 Virginians that chose him to represent our state by using that nickname.
It was an accident on my part and not deliberate. Personally, I try to debate issues rather than throw around insults based on someone’s name. But to each, their own. It’s all civil debate, right?
Actually, you brought up my derisive name for him. Can you make the same claim that you always make sure you say President Obama, both in public and private?
Tell you what, you keep track of our president and I will keep track of Virginia’s AG.
What a shame that the 2009 governor’s race in Virginia had the lowest voter turnout in 40 years. The number of people who voted in Virginia for governor last November was 53% of those who voted for President in Virginia. When Virginians don’t care enough to get out the vote, then this is what happens.
39.8% of all registered voters turning out to the polls is a major reason for the current AG and his far right agenda. Nothing to do but laugh and endure it I suppose. That’s one thing I have learned to count on with the far right. In their zealotry, they usually get too worked up, shoot themselves in the foot by exposing how very NON-mainstream they are, and promptly get voted out of office.
Moon said “Meanwhile, I am not unconvinced that the AG ran for office just to advance his personal agenda and that we have given him the platform to do it.”
This part of we didn’t contribute the giving the AG his platform!!! I wouldn’t contribute to him being Dog Catcher.
If emmissions are good for us. Does that mean those of us in No. Va. that the Emissions Inspection will be abolished? I had to throw that at there, since NOT all of The Commonwealth is subjected to Emissions Inspections.
Again, this is NOT about EMISSIONS or pollution. The EPA has been regulating them for years. Its about the EPA deciding for POLITICAL reasons to assume the authority to regulate CO2 when there is NO evidence that CO2 is a pollutant. If CO2 is a pollutant regulated by the EPA, technically the EPA has authority over anything or anyone that emits CO2.
So, please continue to fight against pollution. We join you in wanting cleaner air. But regulating CO2 does not contribute to that end.
@cargosquid
Cargo, I know what your saying, but the AG makes my stomach turn. I usually don’t waste my key strokes on him.
BTW, did I read your were a title examiner?
Yes you did. Currently unemployed. However, ironically, I’ve been hired to be a Census interviewer…….bwhahahahahaha!
The Census has been good for many unemployed. I’m glad you on with them. It may be a temporary job, but at least it’s money coming in.
Would you mind saying what county/counties you covered? If you don’t want to say I understand. My husband & I both are title examiners too. We’ve are lucky that we work for one of, if not the only title company that’s not reduced it’s staff. With more remotely it’s hard to keep up with who’s out of the business all together.
oops..With more *WORKING* remotely it’s hard to keep up with who’s out of the business all together.
I have seen the word ‘greenhouses gases’ plural used. There are a lot of them. CO2 is defined as one of the greenhouse gases.
I will wait to see the suit which will be filed Wednesday as I understand it. Methane is in there as is carbon Monoxide.
I think there is plenty of evidence that the greenhouse gases are pollutants. Cargo, you and I are just not going to agree. I am not a scientist. I therefore have to go with what scientists tell me. I think this lawsuit is for political reasons.
I have been hearing about greenhouse gases for 25 years and what they are doing to the environment. I don’t take that quantum leap that if it emits co2 then the government can regulate it.
I am beginning to think if the environment were left up to some of you guys, we would still be shooting buffalo from trains while the waiting time to buy a gun would be 30 seconds.
Cargo, will people run from the new census taker? ho ho ho! That’s about like hiring me to be magistrate. I would violate everyone’s civil and human rights the first 15 minutes on the job. Just kidding.
Water vapor is the most powerful (in terms of global warming) greenhouse gas. If there were no feedbacks associated with water vapor, CO2 would have only a very small effect.
I wonder if the EPA plans to regulate water vapor to combat global warming? If so, the next logical step would be for the EPA to outlaw swimming pools and lawn watering.
42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq. (1970 provides all the authority the EPA needs–it’s the Clean Air Act–duh!!!
I have an idea, for all of you who believe that CO2 is not dangerous, try this experiment. Go into your garage, turn your car on, make sure the doors are closed and see what happens. Obviously, I am NOT being serious. If you were to do this, the consequences would be extremely dangerous, even deadly.
George,
Thanks for the reminder regarding the clean air act!!!!
Actually carbon monoxide is what would kill you, but why let facts get in the way of a perfectly good emotional argument?
CO2 is not listed in the clean-air act. Look it up.
So what is the job of the EPA? What does the EPA have to do with the clean air act in the mind of the conservative? We must be talking about a different agency.
I would bet that most of us have substances that are extremely hazardous to human health stored right under our kitchen sinks, none of which are regulated by the EPA. The EPA makes and enforces regulations that are based on laws passed by Congress. The Clean Air Act lists specific hazardous air pollutants (HAPS). CAA does not allow the EPA to willy-nilly declare a common substance hazardous so that they can then regulate it to support a political agenda.
We need to guard against the unintended consequences if this type of power grab. The impacts on industries, including farming and even gardening, could be devastating.
Once again, I’m glad our AG understands the Constitution better than this administration. This pushback is healthy and necessary.
@AreaWoman
Well stated.
Actually the amendments to the clean air act in 1990 gave the EPA the right to classify groups of pollutants as hazardous. Congress doesn’t come along and classify each chemical. What does that bunch of knuckleheads know about pollutants anyway?
The EPA does regulate certain chemicals we find under our sink. They regulate the labeling as well as the manufacture of many of the products.
The AG understands the Constitution better than this administration? Bwaaahahahaaha. Same AG who tried to get a protective order removed from someone who uses this blog (before he was AG of course)? You say he understands better because you like what he is saying. It has nothing to do with the Constitution.
And speaking of the EPA, from their website: WARNING: no congressional approval:
EPA and its Plug-In partners, including AT&T, Best Buy, LG Electronics, RecycleBank, Samsung Mobile, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless, are sponsoring promotional activities across the country to highlight the many easy opportunities to turn in phones for reuse and recycling and provide a call to action. If Americans recycled the approximately 130 million cell phones that are disposed of annually, enough energy would be saved to power more than 24,000 homes in a year. Currently, only about 10 percent of cell phones are recycled.
April 5-11 National Phone Recycle Week
@kelly3406 Thanks. As the environmental safety manager for a research facility, I spend a lot of time clearing up misconceptions about EPA even among management.
And how does your on the job experience relate to what the AG is doing?
My facility has several air-permitted operations, along with a permitted 800 kW emergency generator. Since I am responsible for air-permit compliance issues, conducting visual-emissions tests and the like, along with recordkeeping, my understanding of the CAA and 1990 amendments is slightly more complex than your Wikipedia cut-and-paste.
But since this is obviously more about attacking the AG than conducting reasoned and informed discussion, I assume you will stick to your emotion-driven talking points.
@Moon-howler
Areawoman, actually you know nothing about my background so I wouldn’t assume anything.
Furthermore, despite much crowing, I see nothing that relates your job experience to the notion that the EPA is doing something illegal? I thought you folks decided that it wasn’t about emissions, pollutants or anything like that….it was all about the constitution.
And you are quite right about my disapproval of the AG. Did you miss my thread about Soering and the AG, since you are determined to paint me as an unfair person?
….you traitor. 😉
I haven’t turned in my census form. I think I’ll just end up trashing it after awhile. Cargo, you or your other federale friends better not step on my land. 😉
What does the Soering case have to do with an overreaching federal agency trying to regulate overly politicized issue? I was addressing the assertion made here that the Clean Air Act gives EPA the green light to regulate CO2 emissions. It does not. The EPA is overreaching in its authority and should be challenged.
Does that mean we will have to make you a cake with a file in it, Marin?
Area, I will let you figure out the point I was making. It has nothing to do with the EPA case. You might want to look at the thread here.
In April 2007, the Supreme Court (MA vs EPA) ruled that GHGs meet the CAA definition of an air pollutant. Therefore, EPA has authority under the CAA to regulate GHGs subject to the endangerment test for new motor vehicles.
Good enough for me.
I just hope they allow conjugal visits! In actuality, I’m not worried. If a $100 fine is all I face for not letting the federales have my data and the county having to do without that extra federal funding. Ill pay the $100 fine.
Marin, do you think the country has the right to know how many people live in the country and what their name is?
In the interest of allowing the blog moderator to have the last word, rightly or wrongly, I’ll just go out to my garage and risk my life with the deadly CO2. It might take awhile, though 😉
They have that information already. If they want me to validate; they can send me a letter asking me to validate existing records.
Otherwise, why provide information that I have no control of after the fact?
I can see responding back with a number. 2 for example. But, for them to know my age, sex and race or if I own or rent my home? They can pound sand.
To quote the Simpson’s movie: Global Warming is a myth. Further study is needed. 😉